Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deal with her complaints of nuisance caused by a House of Multiple Occupation next to her home. We find no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to deal with her complaints of nuisance from a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) next to her property. This has caused distress and a detrimental impact on to her property and amenities. In particular Ms X says:
• The Council allowed the owner to build large extensions at the property which exceeded the permitted height, breached planning regulations and were unfinished. The Council failed to restrict construction noise during the building works. And failed to take enforcement action as the unfinished extension was crumbling with exposed brick and rough concrete.
• The Council failed to properly manage the property as an HMO. And to apply the HMO regulations as the property, garden and fences are not maintained. Ms X says there are no proper refuse containers causing rubbish in the street and nearby properties, and the number of people at the property exceeds the six permitted. Ms X considers this causes health and safety issues at the property.
• There is a conflict of interest between the Council and property management company/owner as it houses tenants at the property. So, the Council has failed to properly check the quality of building work and maintenance at the property and been reluctant to take action.
• The Council has not responded to her concerns about safeguarding issues affecting some tenants at the property.
• The Council’s environmental health team have failed to adequately respond to her concerns about Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) at the property including noise from tenants, smoking and drug taking and throwing rubbish into neighbouring properties. Ms X has also raised concerns about rodents at the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated Ms X’s concerns from April 2023 when Ms X complained to the Council about building works at the neighbouring property to February 2025 when we made enquiries of the Council about Ms X’s complaint. I have referred to events after February 2025 to provide an update to the situation at the HMO. If Ms X has any concerns about matters after February 2025, she needs to raise these with the Council as a new complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licensing of houses in Multiple occupation (HMOs)

7. An HMO is a property rented out by at least three people who are not from one household but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. Private landlords must obtain a licence to rent out a large HMO (all buildings or parts of buildings housing 5 or more people in two or more households). Some local authorities may also use their discretionary power under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 to designate certain areas to be subject to additional licensing. This can require smaller HMOs in the designated area to be licensed.
8. Under an HMO licence landlords are required to –
• Provide manager’s details to the occupiers
• Take all necessary safety measures, including fire safety
• Maintain water supply and drainage
• Supply and maintain gas and electricity
• Maintain common areas, fixtures, fittings and appliances
• Maintain living accommodation
• Provide waste disposal facilities
9. The Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 places certain duties on the managers and occupiers of the HMO. This includes keeping any outbuildings, yards and forecourts in clean condition and good order. And to keep a garden in a safe and tidy condition. Boundary walls, fences and railings in so far as they belong to the HMO should be kept and maintained in a good and safe repair.
10. Councils have a duty to ensure buildings have an HMO licence and HMO standards are met. Councils are responsible for enforcing HMO standards and can make the landlord take action to correct any problems.
11. The Council has Standards for HMOs. This includes applying for an HMO licence. When a landlord applies for an HMO, the property will receive a full inspection and where found deficient in amenity, fire safety or management standards, will be issued with an appropriate schedule of works. Fire safety requirements will be subject to consultation with the Fire Brigade.
12. The Council’s Standards included the requirements for HMOs listed above. From February 2025 the Council has a borough wide HMO Article 4 Direction that removes permitted development rights to change a family property into an HMO occupied by up to six people without planning permission. The Council now requires a planning application to be made.

What happened in this case

13. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include all the information I have reviewed during my investigation.

Planning enforcement

14. The Council granted Ms X’s neighbour planning approval to build a rear extension at the property. The neighbour decided to build another extension at the side under permitted development rights whereby planning permission was not required due to its size. And to turn the property into an HMO also under permitted development rights as this was before the Council issued the HMO Article 4 Direction in 2025.
15. Building works started at the property in April 2023. In May 2023 Ms X complained to the Council the side extension was larger than permitted development rights allowed. Ms X asked for the neighbour to finish the outside walls with light render to reduce the impact onto her property. A planning enforcement officer visited the site. The officer reported the neighbour was building the extension according to permitted development rights. And intended to add a brick finish to the extension walls to match the original property. The officer reached agreement with the neighbour to apply the light rendered finish instead and updated Ms X.
16. The Council considered the height of the side extension complied with permitted development rights. The Council confirms it measured the height of the extension from the highest point of the natural ground level within the curtilage of the subject property. This was according to planning regulations. It said that even if the extension height was just over that allowed it did not consider it expedient (worthwhile) to take any action.
17. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2023 the extension walls were unfinished. The Council said it did not have powers to force a developer to finish work because there may be many reasons for this. However, an enforcement officer asked the neighbour for more information, and again in April 2024 about the finish of the extension as not completed.
18. The Council considered it a minor technical breach of planning control. It says it had an unprecedented number of enforcement cases at that time and so case officers had to prioritise cases accordingly. In April 2024 the neighbour carried out the rendering and painting to the side wall to just below the top line of a fence between the properties.
19. The Council says the section of wall below the fence line was not visible, so considers there is no planning harm caused. It notes Mrs X removed the fence between the properties. But is satisfied the development and finish has now been completed despite Mrs X’s views to the contrary. Because of this the Council does not consider it is expedient to take more action and has closed the enforcement case.
20. In commenting on the draft decision Mrs X has raised concerns about the extension including the quality of the finish, exposed concrete, holes and gaps where it adjoins her property and the overall structural integrity and safety of the works. The Council sympathises with Mrs X but confirms the issue fall outside the scope of planning legislation. It says the role of its planning enforcement team is not to act as a clerk of works or police the quality of a development. It considers Mrs X’s concerns about workmanship and damage to an adjoining property is a private civil matter to be resolved between the respective property owners. Mrs X has been advised to seek independent legal advice.
21. The Council confirms its Building Control service mainly investigates concerns about structural safety of building works rather than the finish or workmanship of a household extension. The development was being supervised by an Approved Inspector, so the Council’s Building Control service had no oversight or involvement with the project. So, because there have been no structural safety concerns the Council has not started a building regulations non- compliance case.

Noise during construction works

22. Ms X complained to the Council about noisy construction work taking place in April 2023. The Council explained the permitted hours for noisy construction are set down in a code of practice rather than any legislation. The Council sent a copy of the code to the builder. Ms X made further complaints about noise outside these hours. The Council carried out a site visit in May 2023 and issued warning notices to the builders under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The Council says this was in line with its enforcement procedures. And it received no further complaints about the noise of construction work.

My assessment - construction works and planning enforcement

23. The evidence provided shows the Council responded to Ms X’s complaints about noisy construction works. Officers visited the site and gave the builder the code of practice. The Council later issued warning notices about the noise. This is according to the Council’s enforcement procedures. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s concerns.
24. Mrs X says in commenting on the draft decision she made further complaints in May and June 2023. And the Council acknowledged it did not respond and apologised. But Mrs X says she received no further response and says Council should have investigated as she considered the noise was a statutory nuisance. The documents show that the Council did respond to Mrs X’s earlier complaints about the noise nuisance and accepts did not respond to further complaints as the officer was on leave. The Council has apologised for not responding which is suitable action for it to take. I do not consider this has caused such a significant injustice to Mrs X and so there are no grounds for us to pursue this any further. This is because Council has confirmed it has not witnessed a further breach after sending a warning notice to the builders.
25. The documents also show officers visited the site in response to Ms X’s concerns about the side extension, its size and finish and impact onto her. The Council confirmed it complied with permitted development rights and the rear extension had planning permission from Council.
26. Officers considered Ms X’s concerns about the outside of the extension and asked the builder to complete it in Ms X’s preferred finish. The Council has pursued the finish with the builder although considers it a minor technical breach of planning control and not a high priority. The Council confirms the extension has now been finished to its satisfaction despite Mrs X’s views to the contrary and it does not intend to take any further enforcement action. It has advised Mrs X to seek independent legal advice about her concerns of workmanship and impact onto her property as it does not consider they are a breach of planning control.
27. Enforcement action is at the discretion of a council, and it will usually only take action when it considers it is expedient to do so. The Council considers it is not expedient to take any action in this case. While Ms X may disagree, the evidence provided shows the Council made this decision after visits to the site, discussions with Ms X and the neighbour. The decision not to take any further enforcement action at present is one the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in way the Council reached the decision after considering the site and the information provided.

HMO

28. The Council granted an HMO licence for the premises in November 2023 to be operated by a managing agent I will refer to as Company B. The Council granted the licence following an inspection and it was satisfied:
• The applicant was deemed a fit and proper person to manage the property
• The property was suitable for use as an HMO for the numbers specified within the licence subject to any conditions contained within the licence.
• There were satisfactory management arrangements in place.
29. The licence included taking reasonable and practical steps under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement to prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour by person occupying or visiting the property. And to ensure enough storage and disposal of household waste at the HMO awaiting collection.

Complaints about rodents, rubbish, refuse storage and disposal

30. Ms X complained to the Council about rubbish left in her front garden attracting rodents in October 2023. The Council issued a community protection warning notice to the neighbour in November 2023 asking for the rubbish to be cleared under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Council confirmed the neighbour removed the waste within 14 days as required by the notice. The Council inspected the site but found no sign of rodents.
31. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaints about lack of waste containers for rubbish from the HMO. It confirmed it granted the HMO licence based on compliance with the conversion work, including a fire safety assessment. The Council noted an area for waste containers at the HMO but there was no requirement for the containers to be in place before it granted the HMO licence. Company B advised they would have the containers in place before letting the accommodation as it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide enough waste bins for their tenants. However, this did not happen straight away, so a Council HMO licensing officer took it on themselves to contact the Council’s waste team to arrange for more waste containers at the HMO.
32. In commenting on the draft decision Ms X says she has reported further rubbish spills at the property; one bin has been without a lid for many months allowing rubbish to spill into the road and there are large items of unwanted furniture and items in the gardens. The Council confirmed that under the HMO licence conditions the licence holder is required to comply with any scheme which it provides to the licence holder which relates to the storage and disposal of household waste while wating for collection. However, there is no scheme at place in the property involving the Council. This is because the landlord has opted for a commercial waste service at the property so there is no breach of condition.
33. The Council confirms there is no condition of the HMO licence which says there needs to be room for larger items of rubbish such as unwanted furniture. Ms X will therefore need to address her concerns about a bin without a lid and the household furniture with the landlord of the HMO.
34. The Council confirmed to Ms X it was not responsible for maintaining the property as it was privately owned. So, she needed to contact Company B. It was for them to address any concerns about the maintenance and general upkeep of the external parts of the accommodation under the HMO regulations.
35. The Council contacted the neighbour in January 2025 about the HMO regulations. Officers carried out a site visit in February 2025 and confirmed the site had been cleared. The Council also clarified that Company B had taken action to deal with most of Ms X’s concerns including repairing the fence. It confirms it has no powers under planning enforcement to compel owners from either party to repair/install fences. Overgrown bushes or branches can be cut back to property lines and returned to the owner if required but the Council cannot enforce this.

Number of people in property exceeding the six allowed

36. Ms X says tenants started living at the property in September 2023. The Council says it has not received a complaint about the number of people living in the HMO. It confirmed it inspected the property in October 2023 and issued the HMO licence for six people at the property. It says the number of occupants does not exceed six people and it has no health and safety concerns for the occupants despite the complaints raised by Ms X.

Council’s use of property

37. The Council confirms Company B made the property available to the Council to use for tenants after it had been developed. The Council inspected the property, requested and received the necessary health and safety documents. The Council confirms the assessments found no concerns with the accommodation which it used to house homeless families. It explained to Ms X that external cosmetic issues or unfinished fencing did not prevent it from using rooms at the property. The Council said it was the responsibility of Company B to address any outstanding works provided they did not impact on the occupants of the property. The Council stated that due to the housing crisis in London it was committed to doing all it could to offer shelter to those in need.
38. The Council accepts it is a public body responsible for housing people. As such it has a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of its tenants. But it was not the owner of the building and could not assume the building owner’s responsibility. The Council confirmed the owner was responsible for maintaining the accommodation and addressing any issues about property conditions.

Complaints of Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

39. The Council confirmed it was also Company B’s responsibility to resolve any issues of anti-social behaviour as the managing agent. It advised Ms X to raise concerns directly with Company B. This is because Company B were contractually responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management of the site and responding to any concerns. The Council says it only received a complaint from Ms X about noise from tenants at the property in February 2025. This was responded to and noise diary sheets sent to Ms X to complete but have not yet been returned.
40. The Council says it does not have an ASB policy, but its community safety web page provides information and help to residents who may be suffering ASB. These are dealt with by the Council’s Safer Sutton team who liaise with the Police as necessary. If any of Council’s tenants cause ASB it will intervene to identify those responsible. And will take action if necessary, such as cancelling the placement.
41. In terms of any ASB complaints from an HMO it would immediately contact the licence holder to make them aware and ask what steps were being taken to deal with the ASB as it is a requirement of the licence condition. The Council would also inform the police about the ASB as they are the enforcing authority.
42. Ms X continued to raise concerns with the Council so in December 2024 its Safer Sutton team met with Company B about the matter. Safer Sutton then chased Company B about taking action to deal with tenants causing the alleged ASB. It noted the Police were aware of complaints and attending the property when required. The Council says Safer Sutton told Ms X the issues should be dealt with by the managing agent at the property and she should continue to report actions of ASB to them and/or the Police.
43. The Council held a meeting in February 2025 with Company B and the police to address concerns raised about occupants and their behaviour. The Council determined that none of the issues or occupants met the threshold for a safeguarding referral. The Council sent an update to Ms X about the outcome.
44. The Council confirms it began placing homeless households at the HMO in 2023. These were in self-contained units which mainly suited single occupants. It has one remaining tenant at the property with the other units occupied by tenants placed there by other London Borough Councils. The Council says it has only received one complaint of ASB about a tenant placed at the accommodation and no safeguarding issues were raised with the Council about its tenants. The Council addressed the ASB issue quickly and moved the individual without delay.
45. Following a second meeting in February 2025 Company B confirmed it would be moving all the tenants from the HMO. This has now largely taken place. The Council confirms it is working to securing suitable alternative accommodation for its tenant. It will also be discontinuing using the property for homeless households once its tenant is relocated.
46. The Council says Company B has agreed to install proper fencing in the front garden, and CCTV in the front garden and communal hallways. Company B will place a new set of tenants at the property soon and will be working closely with the police and Safer Sutton in managing the HMO.

My assessment - HMO licence and issues

47. The Council has a responsibility to licence an HMO. The evidence shows in this case it licensed the property after an inspection as required. The Council was satisfied it met the criteria for an HMO and had no health and safety concerns for the occupants.
48. The Council does not have responsibility for maintaining the property as it was privately owned. But records show it carried out visits to the property about the management regulations with Company B. The Council was satisfied that work has been carried out to deal with some of Ms X’s concerns.
49. The evidence provided shows the Council responded to Ms X’s complaints about rodents at the property and issues with refuse. It issued a community protection warning notice to clear the site and has removed refuse from the public highways spilling from the property. However, the Council is not responsible for the household waste from the site as the property owner uses a private arrangement. As such there are therefore no breaches of condition at the site relating to refuse.
50. The Council has a duty to provide housing for people who are in need. It was satisfied the property met the requirements of HMO regulations so accepted the use of property to house some of it tenants. We would not criticise a council for doing so especially with the shortage of available properties nationally and in London. The responsibility for maintenance of the property lies with the owner and managing agent under the terms of the HMO licence. The evidence shows the Council has responded to Ms X’s complaints about the HMO and carried out site visits when required. There is therefore no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Ms X’s complaints about the HMO.
51. As the property is privately owned and being managed by a management company, the primary responsibility for dealing with complaints of ASB rests with the owner and managing agent. But documents provided show the Council has responded to Ms X’s complaints and visited the property when required. There is therefore no evidence of fault by the Council. It has held meetings with Company B who agreed to remove tenants from the property. There will be further maintenance work carried out at the property and CCTV installed before being let to new tenants. The Council will be ending its use of property for homeless tenants.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find no fault by the Council and intend to complete my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman